Under Standing Order 4.4, where any councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the
Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be
considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee
or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during
the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not
participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has
been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.

·It was the decision of the Sub-Committee whether or
not they wished to hear the application in the applicant’s
absence.

·He would invite the Sub-Committee to hear the
application rather than adjourn it.

In response to
questions from Members, PC Constable informed the Sub-Committee
that:

·He acknowledged that the applicant had a bereavement
but the interested parties could have been notified
sooner.

Adjournment and Decision

At 7.08pm, the
Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the Legal
adviser and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had
heard and considered representations from all those who
spoke.

Legal advice was given
to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for
any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to
refuse the application to adjourn.

RESOLVED: To refuse
the application to adjourn.

Announcement of Decision

Members returned to
the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to
refuse the application to adjourn. The Sub-Committee had carefully
considered all the representations made and had decided to refuse
the application to adjourn.

The Sub-Committee was
of the view that the application should be heard in the absence of
the applicant and noted that it was the applicant who had submitted
the variation application.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

The Sub-Committee was
informed that this was an application for a variation of a premises
licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters
2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Statutory Guidance and Sections 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9 and 16 of the Statement of Licensing Policy as the ones
particularly relevant to this application. The options available to
the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 6.2 of the report on
page 19 of the agenda papers.

The Licensing Officer
confirmed:

·This was an application to vary a premises
licence.

·The variation was to remove one condition which did
not allow the premises to sell alcohol above 6% abv.

·The applicant was not in attendance at the
meeting.

·The application had been objected to by the Police,
Licensing team and Trading Standards

Presentation from interested parties

PC Mike Constable
informed the Sub-Committee that:

·The premises had failed the test purchase and was
found to be selling Nigerian Guinness and Dragon Stout.

Mr David Dadds,
representative for the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee
that:

·He would like the application to be adjourned so
that the Licensing team could consider a recent application
regarding the transfer of the premises.

·He had additional papers regarding the transfer of
the premises and that these papers contained confidential
information regarding the sale of the business.

·Hearing the application at a future date, given the
developments regarding the premises, would allow all parties to be
more well-informed and possibly reach an agreed position prior to
the next hearing.

·It was in the public interest to adjourn the
hearing.

·Copies of the proposed transfer could be given to
the Legal Officer and the Licensing team.

At this point in the
proceedings, the Legal Officer informed the meeting that he had
seen a number of documents in reference to the transfer of the
premises, such as documents pertaining to the lease and its stock
valuation. The transfer of the premises had been completed on 30
January 2019. Furthermore, VAT registration and the PAYE
registration were in place. Stamp duty and tax were also being
collected. The earliest documentations appeared to suggest that the
transfer of the property had been in process for some time. The
sales documentation appeared to be in the process of completion by
a separate firm of solicitors to those acting in this application
and the sale appeared to be a bona fide sale. Further, the
applicant, in order to transfer the licence and vary the DPS, would
have to make an application which could be objected to by the
Police.

In response to
questions from Members, PC Mike Constable informed the
Sub-Committee that:

·He agreed that all necessary checks should be
allowed to be made regarding the application and did not object to
an adjournment.

In response to
questions from Members, Ms Helen Pooley, representative for the
Licensing team, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·She did not object to the application to adjourn
given that the application to transfer the licence was still
pending.

Adjournment and Decision

At 7.32pm, the
Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the Legal
adviser and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had
heard and considered representations from all those who
spoke.

Legal advice was given
to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for
any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to
grant the application to adjourn.

RESOLVED: To grant the
application to adjourn.

Announcement of Decision

Members returned to
the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to
grant the application to adjourn.

Full written reasons
would follow in due course.

The Chair stated that
given all parties were in agreement for the adjournment and that
the application to adjourn was made on reasonable grounds. The
application would be adjourned and would be re-scheduled to be
heard on 28 March 2019. The Sub-Committee noted that if there were
to be objections regarding the transfer of the DPS and the
premises, then ...
view the full minutes text for item 4b

The Sub-Committee was
informed that this was an application for a review of a premises
licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters
2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statutory Guidance and Sections 1, 5, 6,
7, 8, 10, 11 and 19 of the Statement of Licensing Policy as the
ones particularly relevant to this application. The options
available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 6.1 of the
report on page 114 of the agenda papers.

The Licensing Officer
confirmed:

·This was an application to review the premises
licence.

·The applicant was being represented by Ms Helen
Pooley and Mr Sean Biggart from Public Protection.

·The review application had been subsequent to a
visit to the premises which found an individual working at the
premises who did not have the right to work in the UK. Additional
breaches of the premises licence had also been observed.

·Representations had been received in support of the
review application from the Licensing team, PC Constable and
Councillor Lucy Caldicott.

·Representing the premises licence holder was Mr
Stevens.

The representative for
the applicant, Ms Pooley, informed the
Sub-Committee that she would like to refer to the witness statement
(found in the agenda papers) from Mr Keith Badrick as his statement related to the
representation made by the Licensing team. Mr Badrick’s statement referred to the
individual who did not have the right to work in the UK and his
understanding of the English language but it later became apparent
that he was capable of understanding what was going on around
him.

The Chair stated that
the Sub-Committee would progress with the hearing and seek Legal
advice were necessary.

Presentation by the applicant

The representative for
the applicant, Ms Pooley, informed the
Sub-Committee that:

·There had been reviews and issues highlighted by
Trading Standards and events that had occurred prior to this
review.

·In October 2018, the premises had failed a test
purchase and this was followed by a subsequent visit to the
premises by the Licensing team on 2 November 2018.

·There were concerns regarding breaches of the
licensing conditions and the presence of an individual who did not
have the right to work in the UK on the premises.

·In relation to the breach of conditions, there were
three key areas where the licensing objectives were not being
upheld.

·Firstly, the premises was found to be selling single
cans of alcohol, something the premises was not allowed to do
following a review of the premises in 2013.

·Secondly, the premises staff did not appear to be
updating the refusals register after the licence was reviewed in
2013.

·Thirdly, there were other issues found on 2 November
2018 that appeared to indicate that the premises was selling single
cans of alcohol and that the upkeep of the refusals register was
still an on-going problem.

A meeting of the Licensing
Sub-Committee has been convened as a result of an objection raised
by Public Protection regarding a Temporary Event Notice (TEN).
Section 105 (2)(a) (of the Licensing Act 2003 [part5]) requires a
minimum of two days’ notice to be given. The first event is
due to take place on 10 February 2019.

The
Chair is of the opinion that although the meeting has not been
convened with at least five clear days’ notice, it should
proceed now as a matter of urgency to consider the objections to
the TEN because of the special circumstances of the need to comply
with the statutory requirements of the Licensing Act
2003.

Minutes:

Special circumstances
justifying urgent consideration

A meeting of the
Licensing Sub-Committee has been convened as a result of an
objection raised by Public Protection regarding a Temporary Event
Notice (TEN). Section 105 (2)(a) (of the
Licensing Act 2003 [part5]) required a minimum of two days’
notice to be given. The first event was due to take place on 10
February 2019.

The Chair was of the
opinion that although the meeting has not been convened with at
least five clear days’ notice, it should proceed as a matter
of urgency to consider the objections to the TEN because of the
special circumstances of the need to comply with the statutory
requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.